|
On July 28 2012 11:44 sinii wrote:Ok how about this, we started as this: + Show Spoiler +and have ended up as this: + Show Spoiler +All through the process of natural selection, including your 'defect genes' playing a pivotal role in it all, I'm not about to question it's methods and neither should you.
Other than cosmetics, that's really not true.
We didn't evolve into what we are, because no child was born knowing how to irrigate farming fields, read, write, and make an atomic bomb. All of our developements have been because we, as social, intelligent beings, are able to build upon things passed down from our ancestors.
How socially developed would we be if your parents didn't teach you their language, and your teachers didn't teach you science?
We're almost the exact same, genetically, as humans were since our dawn of creation. Evolution happens over millions of years, not hundreds.
EDIT: Shave that cave man, get him a haircut, make him stand up straight, and put him in jeans and a T-shirt. How different would he look from a regular person?
|
On July 28 2012 12:06 TALegion wrote:
We're almost the exact same, genetically, as humans were since our dawn of creation. Evolution happens over millions of years, not hundreds.
EDIT: Shave that cave man, get him a haircut, make him stand up straight, and put him in jeans and a T-shirt. How different would he look from a regular person?
Very different. The shape of his skull notably, and his entire body is different because his ancestors haven't been standing up straight for as long as we have.
As for social development, that's true - evolution still actually happens too.
|
On July 28 2012 12:06 TALegion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:44 sinii wrote:Ok how about this, we started as this: and have ended up as this: All through the process of natural selection, including your 'defect genes' playing a pivotal role in it all, I'm not about to question it's methods and neither should you. Other than cosmetics, that's really not true. We didn't evolve into what we are, because no child was born knowing how to irrigate farming fields, read, write, and make an atomic bomb. All of our developements have been because we, as social, intelligent beings, are able to build upon things passed down from our ancestors. How socially developed would we be if your parents didn't teach you their language, and your teachers didn't teach you science? We're almost the exact same, genetically, as humans were since our dawn of creation. Evolution happens over millions of years, not hundreds.
That depiction of us is different tbh, face structure, bone structure and more importantly brain structure would all be different. I agree it could be more different, however I was trying to use imagery he could relate too. Perhaps would have been better suited linking an image like this:
Exchange the images and the point is the same...
|
On July 28 2012 11:33 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:13 jacosajh wrote:On July 28 2012 04:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:38 jacosajh wrote:On July 28 2012 02:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average. So basically you have a problem with people who call themselves Christians but really aren't? Real Christians have a problem with them too. That's a no true scotsman fallacy. You're not a true christian according to the more crazy ones, that's not useful. It's easy to make yourself look good if you deny that there are bad apples in your camp. But no, bad Christians exist, good Christians exist, you don't get to pick and choose which ones are Christians - they believe in your God and interpret the scripture in their own way. And sometimes, that means hatred of gay people. That's just how it is. Why do you equate not agreeing with gay people being able to get married legally with HATRED OF GAY PEOPLE? Christians are also generally against divorce. But does that mean they hate people who have gotten divorced? Christians are also generally against any kind of sexual immorality. Does that mean they hate all people? Because no one is beyond sexual temptation. Sure there are always radicals, as you said. But what is radical about what CFA did? The fact is Christians believe what they believe. You want freedom of speech only when you like what you hear but are not willing to hear what someone else has to hear (a la Bloomberg's statement)? How fucking ridiculously hypocritical is that shit? If you're pro-gay marriage, pro whatever-the-fuck-you-want, go lobby for it. That's what the government is for. But don't be fucking surprised if someone else opposes you and tries to lobby for it too. Or God forbid (see what I did thur) some chicken mogul guy decides to finally confirm what should've been obvious as fuck. If Christians, or any religion for that matter, decides to lobby for gays not being able to vote at all or something crazy like that, then maybe you should get mad. But when they are just practicing what you're crying about -- freedom of speech -- *shrug* I don't even know how dumb that is. I basically see all this cry-baby non-sense as "they're doing what we're doing so let's cry about it and discriminate against them instead." 1- You said that I equate "being against gay marriage" to "hatred of homosexuals". Maybe it came off like that - and hatred is a strong word. But I'd definitely say that being against gay marriage is disrespectful and unfair. Being disrespectful and unfair is alright sometimes, when there's something to gain out of it. However now, they're just disrespectful and unfair over some bullshit semantics. 2- I'm not really sure that the government should fiddle with that shit as it is. Their CEO is a dick, oh well. So the rant in your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs don't really apply. Especially where you suggested that I was "crying". The hell was that? Show nested quote +BTW, I am not a "Christian"; not everyone who is anti-gay marriage or a bigot or a hater or whatever you like to call it is a "Christian." I know of even gay people who think it's ridiculous to legalize gay marriage. I'd argue that everyone who is anti gay marriage and cares enough to express that opinion is misguided. And as individuals, they're taking a very powerful stance against a very mundane equality issue. I couldn't give less of a fuck about marriage, but it bothers me that people are willing to put so much time and effort to keep others from something that they want. Why do people work so fucking hard to grief people who want something so simple and inconsequential? And I know of white men who are so deep into feminism that they hate themselves for being white men, and go so far as to say that "the human brain is a female brain that has been damaged by testosterone". So that was kind of like the "I have black friends" token you used there.
Again, why the fuck does it matter what people are willing to put their time and effort into? Believe it or not people are not always trying to grief other people with their beliefs. They are simply standing up for what they, you know, believe in... like you are trying to do. I mean, what the fuck? If someone lobbies for more smoking laws, do you really think it's because they just want to fucking piss off other people for shits and giggles? Or maybe it has to do with the fact that they don't want to be breathing that shit sitting next to someone in a restaurant?
"I have black friends" token? Lol, I have no idea how you even connected that so I will ignore it. You refuse to accept the fact that it's not just Christians who think being anti-gay marriage is a ridiculous idea, so you poke holes in the logic so you can keep saying "CHRISTIANS HATE GAYS" without having to actually be intelligent about it.
|
On July 28 2012 12:26 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:33 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 11:13 jacosajh wrote:On July 28 2012 04:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:38 jacosajh wrote:On July 28 2012 02:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average. So basically you have a problem with people who call themselves Christians but really aren't? Real Christians have a problem with them too. That's a no true scotsman fallacy. You're not a true christian according to the more crazy ones, that's not useful. It's easy to make yourself look good if you deny that there are bad apples in your camp. But no, bad Christians exist, good Christians exist, you don't get to pick and choose which ones are Christians - they believe in your God and interpret the scripture in their own way. And sometimes, that means hatred of gay people. That's just how it is. Why do you equate not agreeing with gay people being able to get married legally with HATRED OF GAY PEOPLE? Christians are also generally against divorce. But does that mean they hate people who have gotten divorced? Christians are also generally against any kind of sexual immorality. Does that mean they hate all people? Because no one is beyond sexual temptation. Sure there are always radicals, as you said. But what is radical about what CFA did? The fact is Christians believe what they believe. You want freedom of speech only when you like what you hear but are not willing to hear what someone else has to hear (a la Bloomberg's statement)? How fucking ridiculously hypocritical is that shit? If you're pro-gay marriage, pro whatever-the-fuck-you-want, go lobby for it. That's what the government is for. But don't be fucking surprised if someone else opposes you and tries to lobby for it too. Or God forbid (see what I did thur) some chicken mogul guy decides to finally confirm what should've been obvious as fuck. If Christians, or any religion for that matter, decides to lobby for gays not being able to vote at all or something crazy like that, then maybe you should get mad. But when they are just practicing what you're crying about -- freedom of speech -- *shrug* I don't even know how dumb that is. I basically see all this cry-baby non-sense as "they're doing what we're doing so let's cry about it and discriminate against them instead." 1- You said that I equate "being against gay marriage" to "hatred of homosexuals". Maybe it came off like that - and hatred is a strong word. But I'd definitely say that being against gay marriage is disrespectful and unfair. Being disrespectful and unfair is alright sometimes, when there's something to gain out of it. However now, they're just disrespectful and unfair over some bullshit semantics. 2- I'm not really sure that the government should fiddle with that shit as it is. Their CEO is a dick, oh well. So the rant in your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs don't really apply. Especially where you suggested that I was "crying". The hell was that? BTW, I am not a "Christian"; not everyone who is anti-gay marriage or a bigot or a hater or whatever you like to call it is a "Christian." I know of even gay people who think it's ridiculous to legalize gay marriage. I'd argue that everyone who is anti gay marriage and cares enough to express that opinion is misguided. And as individuals, they're taking a very powerful stance against a very mundane equality issue. I couldn't give less of a fuck about marriage, but it bothers me that people are willing to put so much time and effort to keep others from something that they want. Why do people work so fucking hard to grief people who want something so simple and inconsequential? And I know of white men who are so deep into feminism that they hate themselves for being white men, and go so far as to say that "the human brain is a female brain that has been damaged by testosterone". So that was kind of like the "I have black friends" token you used there. Again, why the fuck does it matter what people are willing to put their time and effort into? Believe it or not people are not always trying to grief other people with their beliefs. They are simply standing up for what they, you know, believe in...
That's an interesting angle to take to address my statement. I guess you conveniently don't understand my arguments so that you don't actually have to deal with any of the meat. And now you act like you "got me" or something.
like you are trying to do. I mean, what the fuck? If someone lobbies for more smoking laws, do you really think it's because they just want to fucking piss off other people for shits and giggles? Or maybe it has to do with the fact that they don't want to be breathing that shit sitting next to someone in a restaurant?
Anti-smoking lobbies, when they don't overextend, actually are trying to protect people from tangible dangers. There are no legitimate downsides to gay marriage.
"I have black friends" token? Lol, I have no idea how you even connected that so I will ignore it. You refuse to accept the fact that it's not just Christians who think being anti-gay marriage is a ridiculous idea, so you poke holes in the logic so you can keep saying "CHRISTIANS HATE GAYS" without having to actually be intelligent about it.
I never refused to accept the fact that it's just not Christians, I know full well that it's not just them. I don't know if you're being dishonest or you somehow deluded yourself, but I'd ask to you point at where that happened. And to make sure you understand how basic conversation works, when someone says "x does this and that", it does not mean "only x does this and that". I spoke specifically about Christians, but I never said that they were the only ones.
And I've brought up plenty of valid points on why the anti gay marriage people are vain, and so are the people who outright dislike homosexuals.
By the way, I also think you don't have anything intelligent to say. I just happen to be right (funny thing, you feel the same way!).
Arguing with you is a mess because you distort everything I say and you argue against this completely fucked up shit that I never said. The two big ones so far is that, first you thought that I agreed with the mayor of Boston and you even called me a hypocrite even though I never said I agreed with it, and now you accused me of saying that only Christians are against gay marriage. What's next? "Big bad Djzapz said he wanted to kill all the jews, I saw it". Read what I say, don't make up little stories about me.
|
I do not agree with the views of the chicken however I think the ban is ridiculous. This company has already lost sponsors and is finding out smart people don't want to be around businesses who have these limiting and ignorant views. Government should gtfo of this and stop pandering. I got the feeling the governor is saying his people are too stupid to know any better and they need big brother to come in and tell them what to believe and what not to believe. Let him open his place and have no one go to it.
|
Another reason I'm proud of Boston.
|
Fortunately for me, I don't say such retarded comments as "their CEO is a dick" without knowing anything about them besides the sheer fact that they expressed their opinion about something I don't like.
I don't care about looking intelligent to you. Just pointing out that what you are so passionate (equality and freedom) is exactly what the "dick" is practicing. Now that you've finally explicitly stated that you agree about Christians aren't the only one "hating" on gays, if you could just admit that it's not hate -- just practicing of the very rights you're trying to champion...
|
On July 28 2012 12:48 teer wrote:
I do not agree with the views of the chicken however I think the ban is ridiculous. This company has already lost sponsors and is finding out smart people don't want to be around businesses who have these limiting and ignorant views. Government should gtfo of this and stop pandering. I got the feeling the governor is saying his people are too stupid to know any better and they need big brother to come in and tell them what to believe and what not to believe. Let him open his place and have no one go to it.
No shit. All these fuckers really want is votes, if not for the next election of the office their in now, for the next "big thing" they're going to want to get into.
I find it hilarious that people really believe most of these guys even give a shit.
|
On July 28 2012 13:01 jacosajh wrote:
Fortunately for me, I don't say such retarded comments as "their CEO is a dick" without knowing anything about them besides the sheer fact that they expressed their opinion about something I don't like.
I don't care about looking intelligent to you. Just pointing out that what you are so passionate (equality and freedom) is exactly what the "dick" is practicing. Now that you've finally explicitly stated that you agree about Christians aren't the only one "hating" on gays, if you could just admit that it's not hate -- just practicing of the very rights you're trying to champion...
Like I said in an earlier post, the word hate is a bit strong to use by defaults. Some Christians love the gays, others thoroughly hate and despise them. However some Christians merely dislike them.
But here's the catch, I don't believe that anyone who views homosexuals as equals would be against gay marriage. If they say that they do view them as equals, I call bullshit - because you wouldn't need to defend "marriage" from an equal. And that's why Dan Cathy is a dick (yes) who makes up excuses to pad his dislike of homosexuals with some pretend morality.
On July 28 2012 13:03 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 12:48 teer wrote:
I do not agree with the views of the chicken however I think the ban is ridiculous. This company has already lost sponsors and is finding out smart people don't want to be around businesses who have these limiting and ignorant views. Government should gtfo of this and stop pandering. I got the feeling the governor is saying his people are too stupid to know any better and they need big brother to come in and tell them what to believe and what not to believe. Let him open his place and have no one go to it. No shit. All these fuckers really want is votes, if not for the next election of the office their in now, for the next "big thing" they're going to want to get into. I find it hilarious that people really believe most of these guys even give a shit.
It's funny that you've been indirectly accusing me of putting all the Christians in the same boat and you're essentially saying that all the politicians are there for their personal interests. There are good people out there broski. There are. And some of them sit in congress. And they're not necessarily surrounded with dicks (well there certainly are a few non-dicks around them is what I mean).
|
They got banned because they are against the gay mariage?
Realy?
Just saw about this on cnn, and i realy cant believe it.
This is wrong in so manny ways, i dont even know where to start.
i am not against equal rights for gays in anny way btw
Though i am (strongly) against the right of gay couples to adopt children or "get" children , as i believe children are the future of our society and a mixed couple is alot more balanced and in general better for a child.
|
On July 28 2012 04:40 dAPhREAk wrote:
i havent been following this thread, but have read the news. have people already discussed that "banning" chick-fil-a from Boston based on the comments concerning gay marriage would be unconstitutional--likely a violation of free speech (which applies to corporations in the U.S.) and freedom of religion, including church-state separation?
You should look up the actual letter that the mayor wrote. He didn't actually threaten any sort of action in the letter, least of all a ban. Telling them they are not welcome could be construed as chilling speech I suppose, but the media and this thread have just been erroneously attaching the word ban to the whole issue even though the mayor never mentioned doing so.
EDIT: Here is the letter in that was sent in spoilers, retrieved from here http://consumerist.com/2012/07/heres-the-letter-where-boston-mayor-tells-chick-fil-a-to-stay-the-cluck-out-of-his-town.html
+ Show Spoiler +To Mr. Cathy:
In recent days you said Chick fil-A opposes same-sex marriage and said the generation that supports it as an "arrogant attitude."
Now -- incredibly -- your company says you are backing out of the same-sex marriage debate. I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.
You called supporters of gay marriage "prideful." Here in Boston, to borrow your own words, we are "guilty as charged." We are indeed full of pride for our support of same sex marriage and our work to expand freedom to all people. We are proud that our state and our city have led the way for the country on equal marriage rights.
I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it. When Massachusetts became the first state in the country to recognize equal marriage rights, I personally stood on City Hall Plaza to greet same sex couples here to be married. It would be an insult to them and to our city's long history of expanding freedom to have a Chick fil-A across the street from that spot.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Menino
There was never a ban in the first place, the only reason the media says ban is because it sounds sensationalist and gets people up in arms, as this thread has demonstrated with its rampant claims of this nonexistant ban.
|
On July 28 2012 14:42 Rassy wrote:
i am not against equal rights for gays in anny way btw
Though i am (strongly) against the right of gay couples to adopt children or "get" children , as i believe children are the future of our society and a mixed couple is alot more balanced and in general better for a child.
Many people on here keep saying this, but please explain to me any actual evidence in support of this claim, because every time I hear this, I get a whiff of some bullshit.
|
On July 28 2012 15:36 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 14:42 Rassy wrote:
i am not against equal rights for gays in anny way btw
Though i am (strongly) against the right of gay couples to adopt children or "get" children , as i believe children are the future of our society and a mixed couple is alot more balanced and in general better for a child. Many people on here keep saying this, but please explain to me any actual evidence in support of this claim, because every time I hear this, I get a whiff of some bullshit.
"Research has proven..." "Research has shown..." "A recent study concluded...". I hear this everywhere. Aristotle said it is unnatural, it's ancient knowledge, but then so is the idea that the earth is flat. So I will say this: if you do not trust sociological studies on the subject, I don't know how you can use medicines. Perhaps you don't.
Edit: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic
Perhaps you have suffered from a legitimate attack of the above link's mindset.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 28 2012 14:42 Rassy wrote:
They got banned because they are against the gay mariage?
Realy?
Just saw about this on cnn, and i realy cant believe it.
This is wrong in so manny ways, i dont even know where to start.
i am not against equal rights for gays in anny way btw
Though i am (strongly) against the right of gay couples to adopt children or "get" children , as i believe children are the future of our society and a mixed couple is alot more balanced and in general better for a child.
Your beliefs with regards to children are wrong for a lot of factual reasons, gay and lesbian parents seem to be doing a fantastic job on the whole with raising children, and seem to have, for the most part, a much better track record on average then heterosexual couples (statistically speaking) for raising well-adjusted children (likely due the fact that gay/lesbian couples don't accidentally get pregnant and have unplanned children or unwanted children). Also, would you prefer children have gay parents or no parents? They're adopting children who don't have parents, not stealing them from heterosexual couples -_-. How silly can you get? Are you also opposed to single parents since the child doesn't have both a mother and a father?
And there is no evidence at all that children do better with parents of both genders then with only parents of one gender.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 28 2012 13:01 jacosajh wrote:
Fortunately for me, I don't say such retarded comments as "their CEO is a dick" without knowing anything about them besides the sheer fact that they expressed their opinion about something I don't like.
I don't care about looking intelligent to you. Just pointing out that what you are so passionate (equality and freedom) is exactly what the "dick" is practicing. Now that you've finally explicitly stated that you agree about Christians aren't the only one "hating" on gays, if you could just admit that it's not hate -- just practicing of the very rights you're trying to champion...
Where do you get the idea that practicing your rights and hate are mutually exclusive? Just because he's legally allowed to do what he's doing doesn't make him not hateful, it just means he can't be legally punished for it.
A hateful prick with hateful beliefs is still hateful, regardless of the fact that he is permitted.
There are many different ways to use your freedoms and rights, one of them happens to involve being a complete asshole. The fact that it's his right to choose to behave that way doesn't make him any less of a complete asshole, and it certainly does not mean others should not call him out on it.
This ridiculous idea that we have be accepting of every opinion just because they have a right to have an opinion has got to stop. You have to be accepting of the fact that he's entitled to have an opinion, you don't not have to be accepting of the opinion itself. You can't shut him up, but you can, and should, open a discourse about why it's wrong and spread the information around so that people can review it and discuss it. This is how society advances. Bad and stupid ideas need to die, and that only happens when people actually say that they are bad and stupid ideas.
|
On July 28 2012 15:23 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 04:40 dAPhREAk wrote:
i havent been following this thread, but have read the news. have people already discussed that "banning" chick-fil-a from Boston based on the comments concerning gay marriage would be unconstitutional--likely a violation of free speech (which applies to corporations in the U.S.) and freedom of religion, including church-state separation? You should look up the actual letter that the mayor wrote. He didn't actually threaten any sort of action in the letter, least of all a ban. Telling them they are not welcome could be construed as chilling speech I suppose, but the media and this thread have just been erroneously attaching the word ban to the whole issue even though the mayor never mentioned doing so. EDIT: Here is the letter in that was sent in spoilers, retrieved from here http://consumerist.com/2012/07/heres-the-letter-where-boston-mayor-tells-chick-fil-a-to-stay-the-cluck-out-of-his-town.html+ Show Spoiler +To Mr. Cathy:
In recent days you said Chick fil-A opposes same-sex marriage and said the generation that supports it as an "arrogant attitude."
Now -- incredibly -- your company says you are backing out of the same-sex marriage debate. I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.
You called supporters of gay marriage "prideful." Here in Boston, to borrow your own words, we are "guilty as charged." We are indeed full of pride for our support of same sex marriage and our work to expand freedom to all people. We are proud that our state and our city have led the way for the country on equal marriage rights.
I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it. When Massachusetts became the first state in the country to recognize equal marriage rights, I personally stood on City Hall Plaza to greet same sex couples here to be married. It would be an insult to them and to our city's long history of expanding freedom to have a Chick fil-A across the street from that spot.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Menino , the only reason the media says ban is because it sounds sensationalist and gets people up in arms, as this thread has demonstrated with its rampant claims of this nonexistant ban.
This clears up a LOT, thank you so much and I am no longer interested in this thread.
|
On July 28 2012 15:23 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 04:40 dAPhREAk wrote:
i havent been following this thread, but have read the news. have people already discussed that "banning" chick-fil-a from Boston based on the comments concerning gay marriage would be unconstitutional--likely a violation of free speech (which applies to corporations in the U.S.) and freedom of religion, including church-state separation? You should look up the actual letter that the mayor wrote. He didn't actually threaten any sort of action in the letter, least of all a ban. Telling them they are not welcome could be construed as chilling speech I suppose, but the media and this thread have just been erroneously attaching the word ban to the whole issue even though the mayor never mentioned doing so. EDIT: Here is the letter in that was sent in spoilers, retrieved from here http://consumerist.com/2012/07/heres-the-letter-where-boston-mayor-tells-chick-fil-a-to-stay-the-cluck-out-of-his-town.html+ Show Spoiler +To Mr. Cathy:
In recent days you said Chick fil-A opposes same-sex marriage and said the generation that supports it as an "arrogant attitude."
Now -- incredibly -- your company says you are backing out of the same-sex marriage debate. I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.
You called supporters of gay marriage "prideful." Here in Boston, to borrow your own words, we are "guilty as charged." We are indeed full of pride for our support of same sex marriage and our work to expand freedom to all people. We are proud that our state and our city have led the way for the country on equal marriage rights.
I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it. When Massachusetts became the first state in the country to recognize equal marriage rights, I personally stood on City Hall Plaza to greet same sex couples here to be married. It would be an insult to them and to our city's long history of expanding freedom to have a Chick fil-A across the street from that spot.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Menino , the only reason the media says ban is because it sounds sensationalist and gets people up in arms, as this thread has demonstrated with its rampant claims of this nonexistant ban.
That's beautiful.
|
|
|
I don't need to give reason WHY it is wrong, it just simply is, and if you don't think it is wrong you're fooling yourself. I see it this way, if being a homosexual is good and dandy and there's no problems with it, how come if the whole world population was homosexual, humans would die out.
Human going extinct - we must be doing something wrong
Doing something wrong - homosexuality
Homosexuality - wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/imgs/homo%20sapien%20male2.jpg&sa=X&ei=U1ETUM7LOeet0QW954HwAw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEOacUyZNhzy9e3RflgdL2TqcYIMw)
![[image loading]](http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.gosugamers.net/warcraft/images/people/flash_rolster_proleague2010.jpg&sa=X&ei=0lETUOa0Fu6r0AXUhoHIAg&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGFH9X69tNy0YNlc3N6011Q4MMj9w)
![[image loading]](http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://universe-review.ca/I10-72-Eusthenopteron.jpg&sa=X&ei=VVgTUOabBobF0QWSy4GwAQ&ved=0CAoQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFM4eIjA2BqScRjeiS_MaX2N-rVRw)
